Always-on-DRM - why buy games with it?

[Aeonknight]

You know why people buy games with always on DRM? Because the "damage" on it varies based on genre or game design.

Not every game is designed with long term 10+ year playability in mind. No one's going to be playing Ghost Recon Future Soldier in a decade, so how does it hurt to have the DRM in the game if I've lost interest long before any damage was done?

 

[Gormech]

People don't give a shit and just want to play the game? How is that so hard to understand?

This is pretty much it. A lot of people don't know/research/care enough about DRM or the publisher's past actions to sway their decision on a purchase for something they initially want. Adding to it is the fact that these people tend to be the majority and have/will cause many attempts to boycott to have failing or at the very least, reduced effects.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

I don't.
I don't play that many games anymore, and I make damn well sure they're the ones that I can reliably play in the first place.

 

[legendp]

But nobody pirates for that reason. People pirate for the same reasons as everyone else. THey want free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.

DRM is just a convenient justification. It's like when religious people justify homophobia or racism by saying "My imaginary friend told me it was a good idea." They're completely full of shit.

[citation needed]

I have loads of mates who pirate because they cant be arsed to deal with DRM. I pressure them to also buy the games - at least the ones they like - but they rarely bother installing them because dealing with DRM can be so frustrating

If that was the case, they would buy the game, then crack after installing it. That's why people make DRM cracks.

Once again, your mates are full of shit.

Are his freinds really full of it? I have done similar things. I have being silly enough to buy DRM games before and now I just use cracks for them. in the case of mass effect 3 I bought a retail version but downloaded a pirated DRM free version simply so I didn't have to deal whith it. other games like anno 2070 I was going to buy but didn't becuase of the DRM. DRM's have barely even effected pirates. however it does effect and inconvenience paying customers. and I know others that have use to buy all there games but in the last few years have started pirating because of DRM's, I suppose your going to tell me they are full of it rather than accepting how damaging DRM's are to the industry

If a game is on gog and cost $10 and it is on steam and cost $5 I will go for the gog version simply becuase of the no DRM option. I live in australia where my internet drops out for 30 seconds every 20-30mins (making online games annoying). on top of that I use a laptop and don't always have an internet connection, so DRM just annoys and ruins the experience. give me one example where a DRM was justifiable enough to leave in because it "helped the experience" eh.

 

[Strazdas]

how many new retail games do you buy that are 10 years old? so their not making much money anyway.

Quite a lot actually. In the last 6 months I got Planescape, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 (my old Baldur's CDs are scratched, I can't reinstall anymore), Dungeon Keeper, Condemned: Criminal Origins, and a small handful of others that I can't think of right now. Probably spent as much on all those old titles as I could have on 2 newer titles.

your a rare breed then. most "Average" gamers dont even know what baldur gate is. i too go around buying older games (lately morrowind and Supreme commander) but you have to face it very few people do. and in fact it would benefit them more if they just release it to puiblic domain, give people free acess, and get them interested in the series/studio. but the thing is, they arent making a lot of money on supporting old games anyway. with few obviuos exceptions, like Starcraft, being e-sport and all.

btw is condemned good, been decided whether to buy it or not.....

they dont. aulways on DRMs get cracked within a day. longest one was a week and that was for GTA4. Granted, Diablo 3 took a bit, but thats because its built like a MMO, not as a normal game.

Yes, "took a bit", that's one way of putting it. The beta server files were leaked (not all but still) but even with those, as far as I know, there still isn't a fully working pirate version.

For the sake of the argument i checked the local torrent site.
03 Jul 2012 is when full server emulator (taking up 16 gb no less) have appeared. Commets says its workign fine. i havent tried it myself as im not a pirate.
The beta version emulation (V4) was released 20 Jun 2012.

 

[Yopaz]

Well personally I have left the 90's behind me and I now got a stable internet connection so always one or always off doesn't matter. In the past 3 years I have lost my internet connection once or twice, usually around bed time so it didn't matter anyway.

Do I like always on DRM? No, I do not. Does it affect me a great deal? No, it does not. Do I boycott games I like because they might (MIGHT) give me some small annoyance at one point? No, I do not. If I were to spend more time getting riled up and rant at games than actually enjoy them I would seriously consider getting a new hobby.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

His mindset is that he likes to argue for the sake of arguing and that he's completely unable to see the bigger picture. Don't worry. The way things are going he'll change his mind in a couple of years when always-on becomes the standard practice and we lose the little consumer rights we still have. These corporate apologists are worse than the fuckin' shareholders.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

This is pretty much why I can't get behind Steam. It's just such a risky concept and while it might not be the intention, it just makes me feel like a suspect rather than a customer. I like to have control over my games and my experience, it's an integral part of being a collector too.

As a side note, we're all fully aware "Always on DRM" doesn't actually halt piracy in any way, right? So there really isn't much point for it anymore.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I don't. The only two games I play that require an always on network connection currently are League of Legends and Mechwarrior Online. They didn't make any demand for payment (though both really do beg me for it).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Accepting these practices now will make these practices worse, or potentially much worse in the future. There is no "slippery slope" there, it is fact and has been proven countless times before.

Dexter that is the very definition of a slippery slope. Something can be a reasonable fear or a possibility and still be a slippery slope, especially if you insist on presenting future events as immutable facts, as you are here.

I'm just trying to understand what kind of mindset you come out of that you would actively and vehemently argue against better business practices by big companies that you also presumably suffer under.

Are you, though? Read through this thread. Do you see a lot of "trying to understand" in here, from the anti-DRM lobby?

It is simply a matter of convenience overshadowing common sense, also training users via propaganda.

It doesn't put them off because they didn't think it through, and they don't care about the potential long term consequences.

Because people value their short-term fun over the long-term preservation of their medium.

Yeah, I like to call them idiots..

Because gamers are willing to pay to take a huge, metaphorical beating up the backside just so they can play their Super Lens Flare Dubstep Zombie Warfare 3 because everyone else is talking about it

you know, FIrst they came....

You do realize that we live in a capitalist world, right? It's more than a "what if" scenario. Corporations strive to control as much as they can get away with. That includes their customers. With everything going on these days you have to be a blind fool to think otherwise.

And here's a good one...

The most obvious explanations that come to mind would be "shill" or "personally affected" (owning shares in specific companies or seeing benefits for one's own personal interest if they push certain practices like "Always-Online" for their software). I don't really see other rational explanations.

You're in an odd position, Dexter, to get up on your high horse to anyone about "ridiculing" the anti-DRM crowd, especially since all I've ever done is laugh at their alarmist rhetoric and imply they need to calm down. I'm not the one throwing around words like "idiots" or "shill", implying that people are dupes or ignorant, and I'm not the one INVOKING THE FUCKING HOLOCAUST in a discussion about digital rights management.

So if you want to TRY to understand, you could TRY to understand why someone might find that pretty fucking funny, and worthy of a little ribbing. You know, despite this being a games forum, and despite the fact I might care about games. There's "caring about games" and then there's "caring about games", y'know? There's a point at which it becomes ridiculous.

You're generally fine. You research your OPs well and provide substantial...if somewhat strident...arguments. You're an ideologue, certainly, but you put some thought into it. Just don't pretend your side of the ledger over there is all on the side of the angels. There's a lot of shit flinging in this thread, and almost all of it is coming from the anti-DRM crowd. I'm not really sure you guys get to have hurt feelings until you settle the fuck down.

I was just trying to say that not everywhere people seem as complacent about these issues like it would appear here.

Well, and that's an appeal to popularity just as much as Draech was appealing to authority.

You don't need to do that. You have a reasonably strong case for concern about DRM practices, micro-transactions, and DLC. Most people find them at least mildly distasteful. Not everyone will come to the same conclusions as you, however. I for one do not forsee the same comically dystopian future you do, although I respect why even the possibility of it concerns you. It would be NICE...not likely, but NICE...if we could disagree on an issue without one side being characterized as corporate zombies and rubes by the other. Or we can keep going the way we're going, and see which of us can come up with the wittiest turns of phrase with which to make the other side look bad. That can be fun too.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

your a rare breed then. most "Average" gamers dont even know what baldur gate is.

How did GoG survive then before they even considered having newer games and why are there tons of pirate sites specifically dedicated to games which are at least 10 years old and why do they easily have 200.000+ members? It sounds like an unfounded postulate which doesnt really hold up to be honest.

There are many gamers who are specifically looking for older games because they come from a time when making games was more about doing what you love and less about money. Games like Doom, Jazz Jackrabbit, Syndicate, Populus, Master of Magic or any other of the massive horde of popular cult games from back then have quite a following still but if always on drm had been around back then, we wouldnt still have access to these gems because the servers would have been put down long ago.

That we still have access to WC3 is because Battlenet runs on the same servers and because other clients like Garena took over most of the burden anyway - but that is entirely besides the point because regardless of internet, you can still play the singleplayer and the LAN parts of the game.

 

[Vegosiux]

Why buy a game with always on DRM? Because I want to play the game, and the developers have put always-on DRM in it.

Not rocket surgery or brain science.

Just some cost/benefit analysis, yes, what you're willing to accept in order to get at the game. Some of us have stricter standards, some looser ones.

Just for fun if I ever design something I'm going to put a clause in EULA somewhere in the middle, that by using this product, you agree to becoming my butler for a week at any point I might choose.

Wouldn't be legally applicable, naturally, but it would be an awesome way to troll people a bit.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Because games are unique. You can't just say "well I'll go buy a similar game without DRM", there is nothing similar enough to meet the requirements. If you want to play a game, and every avenue of purchase contains DRM, them's the breaks.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

It is still a slippery slope argument Dexter.

The what if scenario isn't "there will be more DLC". The what if scenario is

What are you gonna do when every new game you buy can be shut down permanently?

No it isnt because its already like that. Let me explain it in a way where most people should be able to understand:

1: You buy a game
2: The game requires constant affirmation at a remote server to play
3: You enjoy the game and play it
4: The company realises it makes less money from sales than it does from maintaining the server
5: The company dismantles the server
6: Your game can no longer connect to the server
7: Your game will no longer work because the server is gone
8: Your game has thus been shut down permantly

This is the state we are already in with always-on-drm. There is no "what if" here because that is the state of many games now.

Thus, this is no "slippery slope argument" but a very real and concrete argument